Civil & Human Rights

For DREAMers, Fred DuVal for Governor

by

DREAmactThe Arizona Republic today takes a look at the gubernatorial candidates’ position on Governor Jan Brewer’s 2012 executive order banning an Arizona driver’s license to the children of undocumented immigrants aka the DREAMers, in response to President Barack Obama’s deferred-action program, which allows undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children to get work permits and remain in the country for up to two years without fear of deportation.

Thousands of U.S. citizens and legal immigrants have also been inconvenienced by the unforeseen consequences of Gov. Brewer’s 2012 executive order  aimed at keeping young undocumented immigrants from getting drivers licenses. ‘Dreamer’ license ban affects citizens.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Arizona Dream Act Coalition, et al. v. Janice Brewer, et al., the case challenging Brewer’s executive order in December. Brewer can’t defend her denial of driver’s licenses to Dreamers. A decision is pending.

Read more

The sleeper issue of 2014: ‘Personhood’

by

Taliban2012 was a banner year for the GOP war on women with old white males commenting on “forcible rape” and “legitimate rape,” and lady parts “shutting that whole thing down.” Rape Comments Cost Anti-Choice Candidates Their Seats.

The anti-choice zealots of the Christian Reconstructionist and Dominionist wing of the GOP appear to be headed down an even more divisive path in 2014 by embracing the “Personhood” amendment from Personhood USA.

The constitutional amendment would define a fertilized egg as a person and outlaw many forms of contraception. I would point out that it would also give a fertilized egg constitutional rights superior to the mother, whose constitutional rights would of necessity be suspended from the moment of conception until birth. No man would ever suffer such a deprivation of constitutional rights, hence the violation of equal protection and due process of law under this radical concept.

The “Personhood” amendment went down to spectacular defeats in the state of Colorado in 2008 and 2010, and even in the reddest of red states, Mississippi, in 2012.

Colorado 2008         Colorado 2010        Mississippi

No  73%                                No  71%                             No  59%

Yes 27%                               Yes 29%                             Yes 41%

Read more

U.S. Supreme Court upholds Michigan ban on affirmative action

by

The U.S. Supreme Court today overturned the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that struck down Michigan’s Proposition 2, the so-called “Michigan Civil Rights Initiative” (2006) promoted by anti-affirmative action proponent Ward Connerly and his American Civil Rights Institute.

Similar Ward Connerly measures were enacted in California, Proposition 209 (1995), in Nebraska, Initiative 424 (2008), and in Arizona, Proposition 107 (2010).

Think Progress reports, The Supreme Court Didn’t Kill Affirmative Action Today, But It Came Close:

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Michigan’s ban on affirmative action in higher education Tuesday morning, in the latest ruling to effectively weaken affirmative action without killing it.

The ruling has significant policy repercussions: It means Michigan’s public universities no longer have the discretion to decide whether they want to use affirmative action policies to diversify their student bodies; they are banned by state law from considering race in admissions.

Read more

U.S. Supreme Court rejects Arizona appeal of SB 1070

by

SB1070Arizona’s lawless legislature and Attorney General Tom “banned for life by the SEC” Horne have lost in court again.

Today the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Arizona’s appeal from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals striking down the harboring provision of SB 1070. SB 1070 Harboring Provision Won’t Be Restored by U.S. Supreme Court:

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear Arizona’s appeal of a lower court’s decision that blocked a provision of Senate Bill 1070.

Despite the high court’s big 2012 ruling on SB 1070, several provisions of the law weren’t at issue in that case, and the American Civil Liberties Union and others have since been fighting court battles involving those other provisions. In this case, the harboring provision of SB 1070 has been defeated.

A federal district court had issued the injunction against the provision, which was upheld by an appeals court in October, and now won’t be an issue for the Supreme Court.

Read more

Update on 10th Circuit Court same-sex marriage appeals

by

EqualThe Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Kitchen v. Herbert (Utah) last week, and heard oral arguments in Bishop v. Smith (Oklahoma) on Thursday.

The Denver Post reports that the defendants in Bishop argued the issue of standing rather than the merits of the case. Procedural tiff could foul Oklahoma lesbian couples’ marriage quest:

Oral arguments before the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Oklahoma’s ban on same-sex marriage Thursday had less to do with weddings than whether the plaintiffs sued the wrong person — again.

“We don’t believe the plaintiffs have standing,” said Jim Campbell, attorney for defendant Tulsa County Clerk Sally Smith.

But plaintiff attorney Don Holladay, who represents two Oklahoma lesbian couples, suggested an ironclad reason they sued Smith: a 10th Circuit panel of judges ordered them to sue the clerk in 2009.

The argument looms large because if the defense is correct, then the plaintiffs’ court odyssey that began in 2004 will have been in vain.

“If the court agrees on our issue, that will end the case,” Campbell said.

* * *

Plaintiffs, who also include partners Susan Barton and Dr. Gay Phillips, first sued Oklahoma’s governor and attorney general the day after voters passed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage Nov. 3, 2004.

But in 2009, the first panel of 10th Circuit judges to review the case ruled that they shouldn’t have named the governor and attorney general as defendants. So plaintiffs then sued Smith instead.

In January, U.S. District Judge Terence Kern struck down Oklahoma’s gay marriage ban, but in his ruling he pointed out that they should have sued the governor and attorney general.

Read more